Why use cement to build antique buildings?

Liu is a famous writer in China. He was famous for writing The Head Teacher in the 1980s. In recent years, he has also talked about a dream of red mansions in hundreds of lectures and written many architectural comments. Some of his architectural criticism articles are not bad, representing some people's views on architecture in society. I admire those writers who criticize architecture without doing it. I also bought books with Liu, but they are amateurs after all, and some opinions are debatable. I'll give you some. Recently, I read a book in which Mr. Liu wrote an article called Cement and Glass, in which he criticized that some places now use cement to build "antique buildings" (mainly "bridge railings" and pavilions in some gardens). After reading it, he "tut-tut called it fake". He believes that since it is an "antique", it must be made of wood and bricks, otherwise it is fake. Therefore, he "suggested" that if you can't find wood and bricks, don't rush to "antique" cement. The nature of cement determines that it is difficult to produce the texture and charm of traditional building materials such as solid wood and ceramic tiles. ..... When Mr. Liu said "cement" here, he actually meant "reinforced concrete". Cement is just a cementing material. Before cement appeared, we mixed lime and sand to build bricks, stones and the Great Wall of Wan Li ... In addition to the same purpose, cement can also be mixed with steel bars and sand (aggregate) to form "reinforced concrete" instead of wood to build various "buildings". Ordinary laymen also call "reinforced concrete" cement and cement is cement. Can cement be used to build "antique buildings"? What is "antique architecture"? This is a modern building in the traditional style of China. The era has developed to "modern", why go to the ancient style? In most cases, I think it should be like this. Not only is it unnecessary to be "antique", but even the so-called "combination of Chinese and western" is unnecessary. However, under special circumstances, such as some religious buildings, pavilions in scenic spots and gardens, and commemorative buildings with special significance, what the masses want to see is the artistic image of traditional architecture, so the so-called "antique" is inevitable. Here, "antique building" is only a modern building with the image of "traditional building", and no one will regard it as an "ancient building". So there is no question of "false" and "false". Since it is a "modern building", why not use modern building materials? Besides, when times change, everything will change, which is normal. China's traditional architecture came into being under certain historical conditions. It is impossible to build a building that is not "fake" according to the practice at that time. Not to mention the serious shortage of wood resources, the construction technology and technical conditions have been completely changed. There were no architects or engineers in the history of China, and a large number of buildings were completed by "craftsmen", mainly carpenters. This kind of craftsman spreads technology by the way of "master-apprentice inheritance", and is also related by blood relationship and regional relationship, forming a "design and construction technical team" corresponding to specific social conditions. For example, carpenters in Dongyang, Zhejiang, masons in Hui 'an, Fujian and so on. With the development of history, this traditional construction industry organization maintained by mentoring relationship has disintegrated, and most traditional handicraft skills cannot be passed down. Modern buildings are designed and calculated by architects and engineers, and then workers "make them according to the drawings". The task of the owner (former master) of a construction enterprise is mainly to manage and allocate funds, which is completely different from before! It is difficult for you to build "real" ancient buildings like in the past. I'm afraid few architects can draw detailed drawings of ancient wooden structures, and few carpenters can make authentic mortises and tenons and arches. If you stick to it, you may find several "experts" all over the country, but who will bear the greatly increased "cost"? In fact, antique buildings built with "reinforced concrete" are not worse than those built entirely with "wood, bricks and tiles" and traditional techniques. Moreover, it is far superior to the latter in durability, fire prevention and load bearing. For example, Nanjing Linggu Temple Tower, built in 1929, has a reinforced concrete structure, which was designed by a foreign design firm in Shanghai at that time. However, the charm of pavilion towers in China has not changed. It looks no different from the traditional tower in appearance, but its internal use space is much larger than that of the masonry tower, and it can go up to the top floor (nine floors in total) along the spiral stairs. Eighty years later, it is still intact. However, many wooden "ancient buildings" built in the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China with a time difference of only 30 to 40 years are now dilapidated and in urgent need of maintenance and "rescue". This shows that the superiority of "cement" is obvious, and it is entirely possible to build "antique buildings" with "cement". In recent decades, there are many successful examples of "cement" construction, such as the "Yellow Crane Tower" in Wuhan, which was built in the 1980s and has a reinforced concrete structure. I feel very good, and it has also been recognized by the masses. As for many pavilions in garden buildings, many of them are made of "cement". Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that building "antique buildings" with "cement" is similar to "imitation". Fortunately, Mr. Liu is not an "official" with real power, otherwise, architects will be at a loss.